the outcome?
1. Jaywill was caught posting misinformation in an attempt to give Robbie a taste of his own medicine for making a post about Nominal Christians lynching people on Sunday afternoons right after attending church.
2. Robbie learned why Jaywill professes much of the things he does. He is deeply influenced by a person bearing the name Witness Lee who has a penchant for litigation and acquiring church property.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBefore I examine Robbie's comments let me first give my brief take on where thread has led for me.
1.) I don't know if Charles Russell was a Mason. He was leaning in his early years to gnostic mystical teachings akin to what many say are the staple of the very secretive Freemasonry group.
2.) I would say Jehovah's Witnesses are embarressed by the leanings of the early Russell and distance themselves from that part of his life. They also distance themselves from his gnostic mysticism.
I have never encountered a JW to talk about these things Russell showed some fascination for.
3.) One exception, I think, is their gnostic like insistence that Jesus did not physically rise. Like the Docetist, a branch of Gnosticism, they don't want to teach the physical Jesus Christ after His resurrection. They misused 1 Cor. 15:45 in a twisted way to uphold this heretical doctrine.
I am still studying that matter about early JW roots. They were more an offshoot of 19 century Adventists.
1. Jaywill was caught posting misinformation in an attempt to give Robbie a taste of his own medicine for making a post about Nominal Christians lynching people on Sunday afternoons right after attending church.
First IDENTIFY the "misinformation" and I will retract it.
I raised a QUESTION. And I have been up front that I am still studying and that the man Russell was "innocent until proven guilty" about actually BEING a Mason. He thought like one and I am puzzled why JWs don't go to the core governing body and ask the pyramid association at the memorial site be removed.
My guess is that they may be afraid of doing that.
Robbie can QUOTE the specific "misinformation" I wrote.
Or he can point out any "misinformation" that was in any YouTube I provided a link to.
1. Jaywill was caught posting misinformation in an attempt to give Robbie a taste of his own medicine for making a post about Nominal Christians lynching people on Sunday afternoons right after attending church.
I was not "caught" doing anything except being provocative.
Why are you lying about this robbie?
Give you a taste of your own medicine was an additional purpose of the thread for which I still intend.
The reason was not about lynchings. The reason was you JWs oft accusations that orthodox Christians are more influenced by pagan mystery religions from Babylon than from the Bible.
That is the "medicine".
I had no thought about any lynchings in the formation of this thread.
2. Robbie learned why Jaywill professes much of the things he does. He is deeply influenced by a person bearing the name Witness Lee who has a penchant for litigation and acquiring church property.
Wrong again. It shows you have not done as much objection looking into Witness Lee as I have done into Charles Russell. Whom I am still studying.
But you're bothered and you're lashing out. That's understandable when you have to taste some of your own kind of examination.
Litigation done by the either the publishing house of Lee's writings or by local churches were about the making up of false reports about behavior which didn't happen.
Libel Litigation Actions Filed by the Local Churches [sic]
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/libel-litigations/index.html
Concerning the first litigation the Judge ruled in favor of Witness Lee in that he was libeled by Spiritual Counterfeits Project SCP.
The Expert's Speak is a place where you may read the court testimony of the expert witnesses which persuaded the court that libel was committed in the case of the book "The Godmen" that went beyond doctrinal disputes to fabricate false accusations about [i] behavior.
None of the following expert witnesses meet with any of the local churches. They used their professional skills in things like psychology, expertise in cults and religious movements, religions conversions, and sociology to study the case of the books written against Witness Lee.
They agreed that the books went way beyond doctrinal disagreement and into libelous character defamation based on untrue reports on things that never happened.
Court Testimony of H.Newton Maloney Phd.
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/libel-litigations/index.html
Court Testimony of J. Gordon Melton Phd.
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/libel-litigations/god-men/experts/melton.html
Court Testimony of John Albert Saliba Phd.
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/libel-litigations/god-men/experts/saliba.htm
Court Testimony of Eugene Van Ness Goethcius Phd. Thd.
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/libel-litigations/god-men/experts/goetchius.html
Court Testimony of Rodney Stark Phd.
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/libel-litigations/god-men/experts/stark.html
Now tell me where you are getting this information about land disputes please.
Originally posted by sonshipWhat does the scriptures say about going to court against other brothers jaywill? can we compare that with the actions of your mentor Witness Lee?
Before I examine Robbie's comments let me first give my brief take on where thread has led for me.
1.) I don't know if Charles Russell was a Mason. He was leaning in his early years to gnostic mystical teachings akin to what many say are the staple of the very secretive Freemasonry group.
2.) I would say Jehovah's Witnesses are embarressed by the lea ...[text shortened]... ts/stark.html
Now tell me where you are getting this information about land disputes please.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
What does the scriptures say about going to court against other brothers jaywill? can we compare that with the actions of your mentor Witness Lee?
Before we go on to that point let me ask you first if you read any of the testimonies of any of the expert witnesses. Otherwise this becomes a whack-a-mole game which can be time consuming and futile.
In the case of Charles Russell, I took the initiative to listen to objective second opinions. You didn't link me to these rebuttals. I went to find them myself. (One you linked me to).
If I ascertain that you are putting forth an honest effort to look at these matters from different angels, I'd be happy to give some time to this last request. I'm ready.
My question is are you reasonably ready ?
Copied without permission from "Repeating False Witness in Accusing the Local Churches of “Litigiousness”
A Response to Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes’ Defense of the “Open Letter” and Critique of the Christian Research Journal’s Reassessment of the Local Churches" which is at -
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/Geisler-Rhodes/false-witness-re-litigiousness.html
For years certain circles within the Christian countercult movement have cultivated the perception that the local churches employ litigation and the threat of litigation to silence critics. As supporting evidence, they rely on a list of purported lawsuits and threats of lawsuits published by the Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP) in 1983 to rally support for defense of their book The God-Men, which was subsequently ruled to be libelous.1 SCP’s list appears to be based on a list that was produced in a contemporaneous litigation concerning The Mindbenders: A Look at Current Cults (Mindbenders), which was subsequently retracted with an apology from the publisher in an agreement signed by its author, Jack Sparks.2
Neither Sparks nor SCP provided supporting documentation for the charges in their respective lists. Their compilations should have been suspect, given their obvious bias in the matter. Nevertheless, this list has been accepted as fact by the critics of the local churches and has been subsequently revised and republished in various forms by Jim Moran, the Cult Awareness & Information Center, the Bereans Apologetics Research Ministry, Harvest House Publishers, and Eric Pement. These largely undocumented claims have in themselves sufficed as evidence of the charge of litigiousness among the countercult community. Most recently, Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes have endorsed Eric Pement’s version of this list, saying:
The Local Church (LC), known for its litigious activity in threatening to sue (and actually suing) individuals and groups that call them a "cult"…
and:
Noted cult researcher Eric Pement has listed numerous examples of Christian groups that were threatened or sued by the LC, most of which CRI [Christian Research Institute] did not even attempt to refute in its Journal articles.3
Interested readers can continue to research at
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/Geisler-Rhodes/false-witness-re-litigiousness.html
Voices of Confirmation That is Christian scholars or workers vouching that the local churches have an orthodox Christian theology:
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/eBooks/Voices%20of%20Confirmation.pdf
Sample :
16
Edwin S. Gaustad
is an Emeritus Professor of History and Religious Studies at the University of California, Riverside. He has also served as president of the American Society of Church History and has authored over a dozen books including New Historical Atlas of Religion in America and Church and State in America.
“From my observation, I conclude that the Local Church [sic] stands in the tradition of evangelical Christianity, of the Protestant emphasis on biblical authority, of the great Christian mystics’ and pietists’ concern for the inner life, of the millennia-old expectation of a New Age, and of born-again, experiential religion. They meet together, pray together, sing and study together, and grow together. They labor to be loyal to their particular vision of the Christian life. It seems enough. It also sounds very much like the free exercise of religion.”
The Experts Speak Concerning Witness Lee and the Local Churches
, p. 200
Billy Graham and Carl F. H. Henry founded
Christianity Today
in 1956 to represent the views of theologically conservative Christians. Today it is the leading evangelical newsmagazine and offers insight and commentary on a wide range of issues, trends, and current events.
“Just to be clear, the Local Church/Living Stream is not even close to being a cult—so their indignation is understandable. They loyally follow the teaching of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Lee’s writings can be confusing and (to our minds, anyway) contradictory at points. But [Christianity Today] editors have asked Local Church leaders doctrinal questions, and their answers were straightforward and satisfying. We agree with a Fuller Theological Seminary study that concluded the Local Church represents a ‘genuine, historical, biblical Christian faith in every essential aspect."
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou failed to see it because I have not yet answered it specifically.
I fail to see where you answer the question Jaywill.
I did not see a answer to what I asked you, to ascertain if you had read any one of the articles on your own. I told you I did not want to play perpetual Whack-A-Mole going from complaint to complaint.
I did not see an answer to figure out if you were reasonably ready.
If I ascertain that you are putting forth an honest effort to look at these matters from different angles [edited], I'd be happy to give some time to this last request. I'm ready.
My question is are you reasonably ready ?
While we are speaking about requests going unanswered, I notice that I NEVER got a reply from last week about "What is God like, if you experience God?" Did I ?
Originally posted by sonshipOk its self evident that you are embarrassed to answer the question because it will incriminate your spiritual teacher. That's fine I would feel evasive and embarrassed as well. You were not asked to play any games, what you were actually asked was.
You failed to see it because I have not yet answered it specifically.
I did not see a answer to what I asked you, to ascertain if you had read any one of the articles on your own. I told you I did not want to play perpetual Whack-A-Mole going from complaint to complaint.
I did not see an answer to figure out if you were reasonably ready. ...[text shortened]... i]NEVER[/i] got a reply from last week about "What is God like, if you experience God?" Did I ?
1. what does the Bible say about Christians prosecuting fellow believers in litigation.
2. How does that reflect on your spiritual teacher, Witness Lee?
Ok, I'll answer the first part for you,
The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 1 Corinthians 6 - NIV
and the second although I surmise.
Witness Lee has not the freedom of speech to set himself up as a teacher of Gods word because he stands disqualified by his conduct. I say this not out of malice but in truthfulness, he would never qualify as a Christian Elder according to the standards set out in scripture. I really sincerely feel some pity for you Jaywill. You are a sincere Christian believer and love the Christ but this man has acted like a wolf among the flock. I don't expect you to accept this for clearly you have some emotional attachment to his teachings, but it it what it is.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy should I be embarrassed?
Ok its self evident that you are embarrassed to answer the question because it will incriminate your spiritual teacher. That's fine I would feel evasive and embarrassed as well. You were not asked to play any games, what you were actually asked was.
1. what does the Bible say about Christians prosecuting fellow believers in litigation.
2. How does that reflect on your spiritual teacher, Witness Lee?
Mary espoused to her husband Joseph was found pregnant by the Holy Spirit - an awkward situation. Why should the woman of faith be embarrassed?
Paul had to be let down from a building in a basket out of a window to escape enemies of the Gospel. Not very dignified an escape for an apostle of God. Why should the man of faith be embarrassed?
I think I will just let you enjoy for a little while longer, that I am Oh-So-Embarressed to answer you on brothers in litigation. Apparently you really think you have a good case on me.
You're positive that I am Oh-So-Embarressed . Do you imagine me squirming in my seat or flushed red faced (my skin is dark though).
Sometimes God brings His people through circumstances which the worldly ones THINK should be "Oh-So-Embarrassing!" to them. Why don't we just let you gloat in that victory just a bit longer?
By now you could have gone to the DCP website and researched an answer yourself. Had you shown the same initiative I showed in exploring second opinions on Charles Russell.
I understand. You probably want me to tell you here.
Well, while I let you gloat a bit longer in your theory that great EMBARRESSMENT causes me not to discuss brothers taking brothers to court, let me ask you.
You're not embarressed to answer my two week old question are you ? About two weeks ago I requested multiple times -
"Robbie, if you have experience of God tell us something about what your God is LIKE. What is it like to know God? You have at least some experience of God. I don't demand you be an exhaustive expert. I just ask for a little testimony of what GOD IS LIKE in your subjective experience."
My repeated and repeated request has been met with silence.
Now, ... you're not ... embarrassed to talk about it are you ?
When I return this afternoon, I will discuss with you your brother to brother court challenge. Off to enjoy the Lord Jesus this morning.
Originally posted by sonshipFine I can wait till you get back, either way, you will need to confront the issue. I am not gloating jaywill I think you are a sincere person and have entrusted your spirituality to someone that is not qualified to be an Elder according to the principles laid out in scripture. He stands disqualified by his action. This is a purely reasoned stance and it was never intended that you take it personally as you seem to be doing. If you don't believe me in that regard then there is nothing more I can do to convince you.
Why should I be embarrassed?
Mary espoused to her husband Joseph was found pregnant by the Holy Spirit - an awkward situation. Why should the woman of faith be embarrassed?
Paul had to be let down from a building in a basket out of a window to escape enemies of the Gospel. Not very dignified an escape for an apostle of God. Why should the man of ...[text shortened]... cuss with you your brother to brother court challenge. Off to enjoy the Lord Jesus this morning.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat does scripture say about showing love for your Christian brother? And what about "Love thy neighbor as you love yourself"?
What does the scriptures say about going to court against other brothers jaywill? can we compare that with the actions of your mentor Witness Lee?
You are clearly the pot calling the kettle black here. How dare you bring up scripture about treatment of your Christian brothers when you refuse to follow Christ's commandment on this yourself? Hypocrite.
Originally posted by SuzianneThe issue is not about me, its about what the Bible says about taking fellow christians to court and how this disqualifies Witness Lee. How you could have failed to understand this I cannot say but I guess logic never really was your forte.
What does scripture say about showing love for your Christian brother? And what about "Love thy neighbor as you love yourself"?
You are clearly the pot calling the kettle black here. How dare you bring up scripture about treatment of your Christian brothers when you [b]refuse to follow Christ's commandment on this yourself? Hypocrite.[/b]
Personally i don't believe most things you say and this latest tirade has simply confirmed my previous convictions that to all intents and purposes you really are incapable of rational thought. Whether this is a result of some bloated sense of self importance its difficult to tell, perhaps its simply an expression of frustration on your part at not being taken seriously. Until you desist from the caustic diatribe then I doubt anyone will take you seriously.
If you have anything to say about the issue at hand then try to focus on it, who knows, you may do better?